Rolf - On 1/10/13 3:43 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > Hello, Trent, > > On 01/10/2013 05:21 PM, J. Trent Adams wrote: >> Alan and Rolf (and others) - >> >> I'm happy to participate anywhere there's a reasonable gathering of >> folks working together to understand, deploy, and improve email >> authentication technologies (including DMARC, SPF, and DKIM). There's >> already a ton going on at M3AAWG, OTA, and BITS, but they all have >> entrance criteria (and may not necessarily be your personal cup of >> tea). And while it's a more technical venue, a lot takes place at the >> IETF which is free to participate, but that might not hit your sweet >> spot. >> >> Do you have any suggestions of other places to convene a meaningful >> conversation that more effectively fits your needs? And do you have >> suggestions about the type of discussion you'd like to have? Are you >> interested in deployment advice, looking for best current/common >> practice documents, or perhaps interested in helping to author guidance >> documents, or even feeding your experience back into the process to >> improve the technical specification? >> >> Depending on what type of conversation you hope to have, perhaps it's >> already taking place somewhere and folks on this list can help point you >> in the right direction. Otherwise, maybe it'd be worth exploring >> spinning up a discussion here around the interested topics (since >> there's no fee to participate here ... and it's packed with the most >> experienced professionals in the space you'd be likely to find). >> >> Any thoughts? > > I had no specific venue in mind for this discussion/conversation, just > that it is important to give _everyone_ a chance to participate in > these discussions, and not move these discussions behind (for some) > 'closed' [1] doors.
Indeed, while this work started back in 2007 as an experiment between private companies trying to solve a big problem, it's been fantastic to be able to move it out into the public sphere. Talk about an interesting journey so far, and I'm pleased about the encouragement to keep it open. BTW - There's no intent to move anything behind closed doors... the MAAWG work that John mentioned is just one of many streams. There are a number of pieces to the puzzle, each being worked in venues most comfortable to the participants. I'm happy to support any and all work that advances DMARC as an open standard. > This, in order to get broad support for standarization of DMARC and to > prevent interoperability problems. Having said that, I'd like to > encourage the participants in the DMARC initiative to not wait, but > start preparations for an IETF dmarc working group and to take it from > there to a real Full Standard. The scope of the WG could be made such, > that BCP's, deployment advises etc. can be part of the list of > deliverables. I'm heartened to hear you jump up and say this. As you know, we're moving the work into the IETF and we will need your active support as we do. There are some logistical hurdles to be overcome, but you should see more about it on this list soon. I hope it's OK for me to add a tickmark next to your name as someone we can tap as we make the move. Cheers, Trent > > /rolf > > [1] With closed I mean the same as what you mean with 'they all have > entrance criteria'. It is not my intention to call these organizations > really closed. -- J. Trent Adams Profile: http://www.mediaslate.org/jtrentadams/ LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtrentadams Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtrentadams _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
